Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/02/1992 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Patri¢ia DeMond Ken Peterson Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA BUDGET AND FINANCE January 2, 1992 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Increase in Police Imprest FUnds 2. .Proposed Ordinance Amendments a. Pool Halls b. Card Rooms ¢. Residential Solitations d. Pest Abatement 3. Flexib e Fuel Vehicles 4. Confirm Next Meeting for January 24, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: J. Dale Hawley, City Manager FROM: Ed W. Schulz, Public Works Director ~ , DATE: December 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Clean Air Fuels for City Vehicles This report is in response to a letter from the Governor's office which was referred to our department regarding the availability of fuel flexible vehicles (methanol) through a California Energy Commission Program. We are very much aware of the air quality concerns in our community and that we must do all we can to lower air pollution levels. As a result, this Department is involved and plans to expand participation in alternative clean air fuels for City vehicles. Recent legislation, specifically, the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress and increasingly tougher California emission standards have encouraged the transportation industry to consider alternative fuels. If air quality in the non-attainment cities does not improve to meet federal clean air standards, even more stringent requirements will be adopted, including the required use of alternative fuels. The two most popular alternative fuels currently being tested are a methanol/gasoline blend (M85) and compressed natural gas (CNG). M85 is a blend of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline. Each of these fuels has advantages and disadvantages associated with costs, availability and customer (operator) acceptance. (Please see Exhibits lA and 1B comparison of alternative fuels). Methanol Can be made from natural gas, coal and even garbage which makes it a viable alternative. There are some problems with methanol; its combustion produces formaldehyde emissions. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. Methanol has a lower energy value than gasoline; it takes twice as much methanol to move a vehicle an equivalent distance. This results in the need for larger fuel tanks. With most, passenger vehicles it is not practical to double the size of the fuel tank so the result is more refueling trips causing driver dissatisfaction. Page 1 of 2 Compressed natural gas (CNG) is also an attractive fuel for transportation needs. CNG bums cleaner, is abundant and less expensive than gasoline, diesel and even methanol. (Please see Exhibit 2, comparison of pollutant emissions by fuel type). Note that the cleanest vehicle is the dedicated natural gas (new technology). We will be proposing the purchase of this type of vehicle during budget year 1992-1993. Worldwide, over 700,000 vehicles now use CNG. The principal pollutant from CNG is methane, however these emissions are much less reactive than emissions from gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. With CNG and methanol both, fuel availability will continue to be a problem until the infrastructure is developed to meet the demand. The conversion of vehicles to operate on alternative fuels is expensive, but based on cost projections by the California Energy Commission, the cost of converting vehicles to CNG is a recoverable cost and even has the potential for cost savings.~ (Please see Exhibit 3, cost comparison per gallon equivalent). In addition to the fuel cost savings and cleaner air benefits, we will be applying for grants from PG&E and the State of California. PG&E should reimburse us a minimum of $1,250 for each vehicle we convert to CNG and we hope to receive $10,000 to $15,000 from the State for the ten vehicles we have already converted to CNG. We have some experience with both methanol and CNG vehicles. For the past several years we have been operating and maintaining ten methanol dedicated compact Sedans and for the past 1-1/2 years we have operated and maintained four flexible fuel (methanol) Sedans. More recently, we have converted ten high fuel usage fleet vehicles to CNG. The. type of vehicles we have converted are high fuel consumption, heavy use, such as aerial trucks, service vehicles or pickups that run their engines all day or travel a lot from job site to job site. (Please see Exhibit 4, a comparison of yearly fuel consumption by type of City vehicle). Because CNG is cleaner and more economical than other clean air vehicles, I recommend we concentrate our clean air alternative fuel efforts in the area where we can achieve the greatest benefit, both in terms of clean air and fuel economy. Converting one aedal truck to CNG has the air quality benefit of converting 4.18 Sedans. In addition to our alternative fuel efforts, we will continue to use Iow sulfur diesel for diesel vehicles. We will continue to maintain gasoline powered vehicles with an emphasis on "air quality.' We exceed Bureau of Automotive Repair emission inspection requirements of biannual inspections. We inspect ali City vehicles at least yearly. We now have automotive refrigerant (freon) recycling equipment which we use to ~recycle freon and reduce emissions from the release of refrigerant. This department will be glad tO meet with you or others interested in our effort to reduce vehicular emissions and help improve the air quality in our community. Attach. Exhibits Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT lA I I _J _ L l__l._ I _ _l ...... I _ _1__ _ I I _ I ~_.l ADVANTAGES * High octane: 105 ' Hydrocarbon emissions 35 percent lower " than'gasoline's for M85, up to 90 percent lower for M100 . , ....'.':.. , I. Produ. ces less carbon dioxide'. When. burned (but total CO=, Impact depentts on !'he .method :of,.procluctlon: 10 percen!. less total CO~ .~f produced' from natural '~as, up to 1'00 percent more ~f'produced ;rom. coal) .,., .. . Total 'airborne. toxics 30 to 40 per~nt lower than. gas01ine'.s,(,but one airborne 'toxic, formaldehyde, a.S~spected carcin.- ogen,, wou, ld be 4 to 8 times h/gher than · . with gasoline) DISADVANTAGES , .. Less energy per gallon; requires refueling nearly twice as often Can blind or kill if' swallowed / Corrosive , o Difficulty start'lng engine on cold days EXHIBI,T lB COMPRESSED · NATURAL GAS ADVANTAGES " Abundant U.S. and global fuol suppl[o$ . Currontly Inoxp~n$1¥o · ~ Hydrocarbon emissions 40 to 90 percent lower than gasoline's , Caren-monoxide emiss~ons 50 Io 90 ~ percent lower than gasoline's ' Carbon-dioxide emtsstons'10 percent lower than gasoline's I Distribution system largely in place DISADVANTAGES ' B Cumbersome fuel tank ' Requires refueling eve~ 1,00 miles Refueling takes 2 to 3 tl'.m, es longer than it does with gasoline .... . , . .,~ ,:, · :~.~.: . EXHIBIT 2 .... ~/~~~ k d , .~ .I . I I.% / IVIII~ ) EXHIBIT 3 [--~i--~ ~,Ai I ~' ~, z,^~'t~ ~ {~r~i iiiiAi ~kiT~ PLA ~,LLWI~~ ' '* ' III EXHIBIT 4 I "" ' ' I,_' , /u,uu F L. I I'